tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg September 21, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
john: we are here to talk you about breaking news. governor scott walker dropping out of the presidential race. governor walker is about to speak in madison, wisconsin. he was a top-tier candidate in the republican field from the outset of this race. he remained in the top tier for a few months before he suddenly began a precipitous nosedive that began right around the time that donald trump got into the race for the presidency. iowa once atng in
the top of the pack. he has tumbled to 10th place and in national polling, he was down below 1% in the most recent cnn orc pulpit i want to go to -- poll. i want to go to mark halperin. explain to us why scott walker ended up where he did today, on the way out? mark: you will hear a lot of consensus from republicans and pundits about what happened. scott walker never produced a major league operation or candidacy. his own performance was at the center of that. he had numerous things were he said things on the stump work questions were raised about his competence, his readiness for the major leagues. no major league fundraising operation, no major league performance in the debate, not a major-league staff. he was accused as a long time political operative himself of
micromanaging. in a competitive field, scott saw a precipitous decline and the thought of going out without money in the till without an improvement i performance is too much for him. john: he was a guy who won election in wisconsin three times in four years. election andll reelection in the face of a huge amount of spending from organized labor to take him down. that made him a national figure. two a lot of conservatives, his fight against unions made him a hero. he took that with him into this race. it gave him a standing as a winner and a fighter and he looked like someone who could do
what would be ideal cycle, who would appeal to the establishment wing of the party and an at the establishment wing. he is an evangelical christian and a fighter. gov. walker: we want to extend our sympathy to the family of wisconsin supreme court justice patrick crooks. we will let the supreme court make the official announcements, but we want to pass on her prayers and sympathy to him and his family, certainly his wife and children and extended family. more coming on that in the days to come. as a kid, i was drawn to ronald reagan because he was a republican and a conservative. most of all, i admire him because of his eternal optimism in the american people. that thought came into my head when we were all standing on the stage at the lake reagan -- at
the reagan library last week. ronald reagan was good for america because he was an optimist. sadly, the debate taking place in the party today is not focused on that optimistic view of america. instead it has drifted into personal attacks. in the end, i believe that the voters want to be for something and not against someone. that is talking about how bad things are, we want to hear how we can make them better for everyone. we need to get back to the basics of our party. you are a party that believes people create jobs, not the government. economy way to grow the is to get government out of the way and build it from the ground up. we are a party that believes the success in government is having people not depending on the government.
a are the party that believes strong military leads to peace through strength and that will protect our future generations, and that good will triumph over evil. we are the party that believes in the american people, not the federal government. these ideas will help us win the election next fall and more importantly, these ideas will make our country great again. ofrefocus on the debate these types of issues will require leadership. i was sitting in church yesterday. the pastor's words reminded me that the bible is full of stories about people who were called to be leaders in unusual ways. today, i believe that i am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive conservative message can rise to the top of the field. spendhis in mind, i will my cap -- suspend my campaign
immediately. republican other residential candidate to do the same so the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current front-runner. this is fundamentally important to the future of the party and more importantly, to the future of our country. this is a difficult decision, as so many wonderful people stepped up to her came. we are very thankful for the outstanding volunteers and the excellent staff who helped us throughout the campaign. you all have been like family to us. speaking of family, i want to personally thank my wife, rock, aswho has been a well as our two amazing sons, matt and alex. i want to thank all of our family and friends for love and support. most of all, i want to thank god
for his abundant grace. when or lose, it has always been more than enough. thank you. scottthat was governor walker of wisconsin making a brief, pointed, and somewhat unusual speech in madison, wisconsin, announcing that he is essentially ending his campaign. i want to bring back my friend mark halperin. i don't think i have ever releasing a withdrawal speech go like that. i have seen a lot of them. scott walker called on republicans to drop out of the a consensusl on rallying against donald trump is what extraordinary. mark: more and more resources, not just the candidates who drop out and there's staffers, but more and more resources will be devoted to stopping donald trump
in the wake of what has happened. in the establishment, not a lot of sympathy on a professional level for scott walker. they did not see him running a strong campaign. the message is that there needs to be now, not in march, some effort to find strong establishment candidates with the political skills to take on donald trump. gave a prominent voice to that sentiment. john: yes. quite unusual to use a withdrawal speech essentially as a rallying cry. scott walker was saying there that he was going to take one for the team, which is to say the republican party. he said he was leading by leaving the race and calling for everyone to rally around someone else. you that agree with there are a lot of energies starting to build in that direction in the republican party and the establishment wing of the republican aarti, but where do you think that --
republican party, but where do whoseink that will go and benefit would accrue and in the short term? mark: the two guys out,. walker, did not get out because they graciously want to get er, did- perry and walk not get out because they graciously wanted to defeat trump. they got out because there was no money. rubio, johnrco kasich will move aggressively to try to get some of walker's financial support on the grassroots side. for donald trump and ted cruz to move aggressively and probably with the most success to sign up walker supporters. there are a lot of grassroots people who were for walker that need a home to go to. his poll standings suggest she did not have broad public
support, but now there is a fire sale for walkers of others and i think 5, 6, 7, 8 people could say tonight with walker out of the race, there is room for me here. given how low he dropped in the polls, there is no reason to say that they will get walker supporters and move closer to trump, carson, or fiorina. calling, go to our john mccormick. covered the scott walker beach. you wrote about him this weekend and what seemed to be a last-ditch effort to go for broke in the hawkeye state, where you now are. tell us whether you had seen any signs of this coming or whether this did come as much of a surprise as it did the rest of us. john m.: you could tell there was something off. i did not have a sense for that. the cnn poll had shown him below
1% or whether he was thinking about what he did today. he put on a brave face. he said he was going to spent 10 days a month and i will going forward. hisas going to become campaign headquarters and people would field use running for governor there. that changed overnight. his wife, tonette, was pulled aside by a supporter at one of the events late in the afternoon. i did not hear the question that was asked, but she said he is going to continue to be governor of wisconsin third 2018, the matter what happens. lookingd tell they were beyond the campaign a little bit. in terms of what he said about finding an anti-trump, keep in mind that scott walker is very previous, a fellow
and i would be interesting to see if those two gentlemen had a conversation this afternoon. john h.: he made it sound like a personal decision, that he was doing this for the wood of the party, leading by leaving the race. -- good of the party, leading by leaving the race. his money was drying up rather rapid rate. he was having fund-raising trouble before the debate at the reagan library in simi valley last week. after that debate, things got more dire with an hours of that debate. what is the degree of panic and the degree of pessimism among walker's donor class, people who supported him financially and others who were establishment and nonestablishment supporters of his, over how bad things had gotten and how quickly they got that way? john m.: there was huge nervousness.
there was a conference call scheduled immediately after the debate were walker got on the line along with his campaign manager and they tried to calm and donor nerves. they put forward their new plan, that they would focus on iowa almost exclusively. no, i interviewed some donors over the weekend and they said they were staying loyal to them, they were maybe starting to look at other candidates, but in his core group of people, there is some real, true believers that very much sort of liked's union record in wisconsin and found it to be a rallying point. there was nervousness, but there were many people committed to him and will be looking for other candidates to support. john h.: john mccormick, thank you, calling in from des moines, iowa. going back to you, mark. there was a lot of discussion at the debate and in last week's
talkingibrary debate, about changing leadership in the campaign, about requiring, chief strategist-campaign manager for walker being forced out, donors demanding change. this afternoon, word was spreading that walker was about to drop out. one of his biggest donors in new york said this was great news because rick wiley was quitting. bundler blur -- this was surprised to hear walk was stepping down. why not do a full leadership reboot and start from scratch? mark: there was not enough time. they were having difficulty convincing walker to make the change and recruiting someone who could replace wiley or be a team with wiley. the financial imperative drove this. scott walker had a lot of problems. what drove him to make this
decision was no financial resources to go forward, to pay the bills, and to build something because he would have to fight his way back. i can't emphasize enough the corrosive effect at occurred as some of the people in the campaign began to lose faith in their own candidates. walker made so many mistakes on the campaign trail where he would say something wrong, off key, he would get that covered for it in the mistakes would be cleaned up by the staff instead of walker himself, and that did not sit well with people. he performed well in the political fights in wisconsin, but was not dealing with the major leagues. yet candidates like donald trump, carly fiorina, jeb bush, are playing at the national level in the media against other republican in a way that is robust. walker had not been able to replicate that performance.
john: while there was no moment that was akin to rick perry's "oops" moment in 2012, there was moments that indicated his amateurism. one day he seemed to be for ending birthright citizenship, the next day he walked it act, and then settled in a place where he had no opinion on the matter. the markings of a politician who, while skilled enough to triumph three times in four years in a state like wisconsin, was not able to play at the .ppropriate level mark: another factor is he got in the race late.
in part because he was dealing with a budget situation in wisconsin. any incumbent governor running who has columns at home -- he has low approval rating at home here in he was at -- at home. he was at war with not only did democrats, but the republicans. to continue to do his danger, and the two for performances -- his day job, and the two poor performances. plummeting in the national and i will pull and being told after a poor performance in the first debate, zero margin of error, and he he did not step up throughout the three hours. john: you need a second act if you are going to make one of these things work over the long haul. he gave some great speeches at the outset for he was declared a candidate that make people look at him as a serious potential republican nominee. he had the calling cards of his union-bashing credentials in
wisconsin. when it came time to move to a new phase, he was not capable of doing that on the debate stage or with his feelings on the national dress were on the stump. press, or on the stump. when you fall down repeatedly, you often find yourself unable to get back up. i want to thank john mccormick and mark halperin for talking with me. this has been a bloomberg politics special report. you can find out more about this presidential race at bloomberg politics.com. our normal programming will resume right now. ♪ charlie: because? >> because we haven't got the knowledge yet to be sure of the concepts. we have to take this very slowly
and very carefully and be aware of the risks. charlie: who makes sure we do this? self-imposed? evelyn: i think we have a pretty good record for regulating our own act timid tv -- our own activity. usphen: new technologies let do tremendous things. these tools are not perfect, so they need to be very carefully managed. charlie: thank you and congratulations. stephen: thank you. charlie: back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
charlie: joining me now is james allison. he created a life-saving cancer treatment that harnesses the immune system. congratulations on the lasker award. thank you for being here. james: thank you very much. charlie: tell me what communal therapy is. james: using the bought -- immun otherapy is. james: it is using t cells to go after cancer. charlie: what are t cells? james: they are warriors of the immune system. cells infected by
viruses and kill them. things that are not both to be there, they recognize it as being strange. charlie: what three-on-two this? -- what drew you to this? james: when i was in college, t cells had just been discovered and no one knew how they work. to me, it was fascinating that you could have these cells that travel through your body and look for things that might hurt you. charlie: and attacked them. james: even though they are things they have never seen before. charlie: my first question, which amended to start with, is what 32 medical research? james: -- what drew you to medical research? james: country doctor. made house calls back in the day. i really supported it. i thought about being a doctor for a while, but i realized from watching my dad that doctors
have to be right all the time. they have to be able to diagnose and treat properly. i figured out early on if you are a scientist, you only have to be right side of the time. charlie: and your business is trial and error. james: exactly. hypothesis, you test it, if you are wrong, you move on. charlie: [laughter] , i hear this term with lots of answers. -- lots of cancers. they are talking about with attacks on brain cancer, in terms of using the poliovirus. if this the coming field in cancer? yes, it is.ld say the immune system can attack all cancers. develop, that i helped they unleash the immune system. they don't treat the cancer, they treat the immune system and unleash it.
conceivably, a could work against all kinds of cancer. charlie: remind me why this class of people -- and i'm having a conference letter with a group of discerning scientists. when you mention cancer research, your name is at the top of the list for good reason. explain how you came to discover what you did. understanding t cells -- what turns them on and how they are regulated charlie: -- regulated area charlie: it's a non-scientific question. the idea of cells being turned on and turned off. that is a remarkable idea, that some cells can be turned on or turn off. james: with the immune system, you have to turn them on. you probably have 100 million t
cells with different receptors. they can recognize different things. when there is a cancer, they have to multiply very, very fast. you go from a few dozen to tens of millions in three or four days, but you have to stop that. --t is why you others found a few others found that there is an ignition switch, and another , it is like the gas pedal. we found another molecule that actually stops in the response -- immune response. charlie: so you got a starter and an ender. james: exactly the the idea we is if tumors get big before
couldcell starts, you eliminate them. charlie: assume that immunotherapy has the potential you think it does. are we looking at the end of cancer? james: i would like to think that, except we have a long way to go. 22% of patients that get a single round of treatment with the drugs we developed are alive for 10 years and they are basically cured, if you look at that way. 22%. we have to get that higher. combination with the same class, where about half the patients respond. we don't know how long it is going to last. our challenge now is to make this work in other types of cancer. charlie: which cancers might
that be? james: the ones where these drugs are approved our lung cancer and melanoma. when you get down to prostate cancer and kidney cancer and brain cancer, they are harder because they do not produce as many antigens as lung cancer in all those. charlie: what else is going on in the world of cancer? james: there is what used to be called personalized medicine, and now it is called precision medicine where you do genomic sequencing and identify the cause of cancer. it is normally something that would tell itself to divide only under certain store dances but gets -- certain circumstances but gets locked on. charlie: what is it that causes cancer? i realize there are all kinds of outside factors, whether it is smoking or those things.
what is it that happens within the biology of the body? james: maintain the integrity of the body, cells have to know when they should divide and should divide the -- shouldn't divide. if they start making more cells, you get a cancer. charlie: if they -- do they go wayward? charlie: they -- james: they just grow more than they should. you get more cells. they also can escape where they normally should be and go to other parts of the body and metastasize. metastasize, or whatever the word is, do they simply go somewhere and multiply or infect other cells? james: they go there and multiply. charlie: the same bad cells go all over the body and start multiplying? james: yeah. charlie: and interrupting body
functions james: right. medicine, youd find the mutations that have been caused by smoking or what ever and stop that molecule from the cells to grow. we have a drug that inhibits it. the problem is that there is a lot of ways that cancer cells is there arele multiple ways they can get around any single drug the next coming thing is to -- that type of their a few works in 90% of patients that had the cancer the drug is supposed to treatment/it is a short duration. -- treatment.
it is a short duration. immunotherapy is different in that it is a fraction of people who respond, but once your immune system starts, you can take it out. four years. charlie: how long does it take t cells, once they get started, to take them out? james: weeks to months. charlie: you can be on deaths door with a certain cancer, melanoma for example, and in two months you will be cured of that cancer? james: yeah. you don't ever have to treat it again. charlie: never have to treat it again. can you imagine? you seen it? james: i have seen it. i have met many people. charlie: this must be the great joy of what you do. people are alive today because of you and your team. james: that is ultimately the reason we do this work.
that is the reason to -- i started to be a scientist and figure things out, but it is also a part of what we are doing this to use what we learn to help people, to save lives. charlie: what are the tools of your work? james: many. cellsments that shoot through beams that can measure different molecules on their surf, and microscopes that can visualize individual cells, many different things. tumorsf experimental mice. charlie: while with something -- why would something that works networking humans? james: mice are genetically identical in different strains. tumors are also genetically
identical. people are not like that. people are genetically very different. the disease is more complex. it is hard, sometimes, to extrapolate. having said that the therapy is not about that. the basic principles of the immune system are the same. charlie: if you had three times as much money for research as you do, what difference would it make? james: it would make a lot of difference in enabling us to study the patients. bute studies, but also now we need to have is pinnacle studies about what happens in the tumor we treat people? charlie: where will you be in 10 years? james: i think we will be in a situation where there is of a precision drug that can connect genetically identify a
patient tumor, although it is not curative, we can combine that with immunotherapy . once you get t cells, they are with you for the rest of your life. if the tumor comes back, they can come back again. we can give memory to the drugs that are usually only around for hours. charlie: can you introduce t cells to the body? james: you can. that is an alternative there a fee that is getting popular when you isolate t cells and expand the ones that you know that interact with the patient's own cancer cells and put them back. antigen a cheat code modifier where you target cells from a patient and make them go kill.
it is a very elegant way. it is a little tedious, but it is also working. charlie: what is your goal next? james: to understand how these their views are working and make them more in different types of cancers. we can cure a fraction of patients. ofneed to raise the fraction patients. get it outside of melanoma and lung cancer to other kinds. charlie: you are here. but so are t cells. [laughter] thank you. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
charlie: richard gere is here. his latest film is called "time out of mind." plays a homeless man living on the street of new york city. it is the desire to be left alone and the need for intermittent connection. here is -- intimate connection. here is the trailer. [bells ringing] who the hell are you?
you don't believe in yourself. what are we supposed to do with you? why should we care? >> had that feeling for the last 10 years, maybe. one step closer to an idiot. and i am just not sure anymore. in my homeless? am i homeless? i don't exist. i don't exist! charlie: say that this is, almost, for you, in your own mind, a film that you made to what -- act.
this is what calls on you to be on the screen. charlie: one of the reviews was peter travers in "rolling stone." it was a miracle it got made because it is not an easy subject. i bought the script 12 years ago, something like that, and knew there was a moving in here that i wanted to make -- a movie in here i wanted to make and it was not obvious in the script what to do with it. i was flailing around, trying to describe what i saw in this thing, and i saw a review in the guyyork times by a homeless headlining it. it was called "in the land of lost souls." i bought the book and read it and i said, is the way to make a movie. this is it stop.
it is not sentimental stuff. he is not shaping his life. he is telling his life as it is. . -- very hard-boiled, not editorialized i saw cadillac man. in his approach, there was a neo realist movie in there. after world, right war ii, and they told real stories that were almost documentary in form. the acting was transparent. "bicycle thief" was perhaps the most famous. i ran into an old friend of mine who had been the cowriter of ie about bob mov dylan, "i'm not there."
i was one of the bob dylan's. i ran into him and said, what are you doing? reality is you need someone was comfortable doing this kind of naturalism. he saw what i saw and he jumped in. he wrote the script and ended up directing it. thisie: telling more about tell me more -- tell me more about george hamlin. charlie: this is the irony. i have no interest in his back start. only the now. only the present. charlie: you don't care why he is there? richard: it explains some things, but explaining at a certain level is not what i'm interested in you that is not what this 1 -- interested in. this one iswhat
about. i want to see ourselves. i saw the first rough cut. i produced a movie and he and i worked incredibly closely on this. soul brothers on this. finally showed me a rough cut he was happy with, and i was delighted for many reasons. it was the movie i had wanted to make, but by the end of it i thought -- i forgot the guy was homeless. that was not the issue. it was a deeper yearning for place i was interested in. spiritual, cosmic voyage towards a yearning for place, for connection, for family, for tribe. where is my place where i am valued, where i am precious? charlie: you perfectly set up the segway into this clip where
you talk to another homeless man, george dulles. charlie: this is been for rain. i think this is -- this is ben vereen. charlie: he plays a character named dixon. richard: he may or may not be real. he may or may not be a real person. >> $60,000 in his suit. in his socks! the man did not have to be who he was. he had all the help he needed in his feet. he doesn't need to be homeless. his deceased told him he wasn't worth anything. disease told him he wasn't worth anything. >> are you the idiot, or am i? that is what i have been thinking about. i have been feeling for the last 10 years, maybe, that i am just
idiot,pid -- loser of an and i am just not so sure anymore. am i homeless? in my homeless? ess?m i homel i'm homeless. i don't exist. what you mean, you don't exist? >> we don't exist! >> you don't exist. i exist. >> they think you are a -- clown. you are a clown. they think we are clowns, we are cartoons. >> i'm a clown now? >> we are cartoons. >> i'm a cartoon. at least i'm animated. >> i am a cartoon. hi, look at me. i am a cartoon. [sarcastic laughing]
--oren: immunotherapy moverman is a terrific writer. we played a lot. you have to be open to it and be in character. we were shooting it. those were not extras walking by. that was new york. charlie: if you had a magic wand, what would you do to change society's attitude about the homeless? richard: we have to start at ground zero. the transition is, are we in this alone from our side, or are we in this together? that is the basic decision we have to make all stop do we work with those of -- make. do we work with those of us who have problems? are they our responsibility? that is the decision we have to make as a society, as a planet.
are we in this together or not? it is not just homeless this. -- homelessness. adon't see homelessness as new york story, but you pick up today, syrians, iraqis, displaced people who are looking for their place in the universe. where can they be safe? where can their families be safe? what do we do about that? how many billionaires are there in the world right now? more and more every day. hose kindve ty of problems? charlie: you must be enormously grateful for the pope we have. richard: of course i am. ofis challenging a lot the givens. charlie: in a human and real way. richard: i think the dalai lama
with this pope together can do extraordinary things. they are doing amazing things on their own. they are coming from the same place. we are all in this together. charlie: and we all have our part to play. richard: we are responsible. no one else is going to fix this. we are going to fix this. charlie: the pope is taking in refugees at the vatican. richard: i did not know that. oh, man. yes everybody in every country -- he asked everybody in every country, you need to do more than you are doing. charlie: we only to ourselves. this is not a giveaway. tus, ineally, all of this together. suffering is shared on the planet. it is an illusion to think we are in our own bubble. charlie: tell me what you came to understand about george other than what we saw on the dialogue. richard: the basic story of how was very long
lenses. one was a 600 millimeter, the other was a 900 millimeter. the footprint of the moviemaking in new york. i was at the cube. i had turned. thousands of people walked by. i was in character. bad haircut and clothes. i came out and stood on the corner. i was in character. charlie: what happened? richard: nobody paid any attention to me. you think i could do that as me? of course not. but i behaved to people's expectation of a homeless guy. a bomb on the street. -- a bum on the street.
they could see that from so way away andwo blocks turned off. we did a shot in the movie where no one made eye contact with. all theseprojected negative things on me. whereanding in a place people are walking, going somewhere. very few cues led to that. charlie: you have to imagine being homeless first. richard: you can't, and i think that is it. subconsciously, we know how close we are to losing it. how close we are to having it all taken away. i don't think anyone is that secure in your life. you lose your job, the violence -- charlie: do you feel that? that you are that close?
richard: i feel that mentally i could go, yeah. i felt that playing the guy on the street. i could feel how easy it would be to lose integration. mentally, i could come apart. physically, spiritually. charlie: the fabric of other things. richard: the fabric of our reality is extremely fragile and always. charlie: describe george's relationship with his daughter. richard: they had not seen each other in a long time. there have been attempts from his side, and the timing has been wrong. he has not been in very good shape and there is a lot of history that has not been fixed. charlie: roll tape. >> why would you give me photos
right. that is why you are upset. charlie: did not go that far. richard: it was amazing. we were just talking. almost the whole movie is in these long lenses. through glass, through windows, through things going by, reflections on the windows that are always moving and dancing. metaphorically, like our brains. our minds are always dancing. still, that is always going on. that is jenna malone, one of the best actresses with which i have
ever worked. this was the first day we shot together. we did not rehearse a lot. i did not want to do that and oren did not want to do that. jena didn't, either. i walked out of the first scene and i had tears in my eyes. the scene was so real and i was happy that she was so real, so much fun to play with. charlie: are you working all the time or are you spending a portion of time in your faith and your commitment to the dalai lama? richard: that is a lot of what i do, for sure. i'm still learning. that is -- that is how you do this. your life is still about learning. you don't come into this with a speech or dialogue. what can i learn here? charlie: that is why i stay so french. richard: it is why people want -- stay so fresh. richard: it is why people want
to do this. do -- it is why i do what i do. i have been chairman of the board of the organization for that for 25 years. it is a huge part of what i do. i think that is resolved that is what i do as a man. [laughter] charlie: you are an actor. i'm admitting it here for the first time. committed to are this for quite some time. last friday ins terms of social change. i met some really important parts where i want to do this. charlie: to make a change for different attitudes and funding homeless.hat help the richard: housing is number one,